Socialism with a human face - if ever there was a need

The editorial last weekend ended brilliantly by saying how the Grenfell fire "exposes a country with the wrong priorities, lorded over by a worthless elite who have nothing to offer" (Morning Star, 18/06/17).

     Successive governments have caved in far too easily to profiteering landlords, illustrated not only by Rachmanism again being allowed to flourish, and tenants being forced to pay extortionate rents, but by the way the coroner`s recommendations after the Lakanal House fire were not immediately enforced.  If we look back at the record of recent Tory governments, it comes as little surprise.

    For example, in January last year a Labour amendment to the housing and planning bill was defeated, with Conservative MPs voting against proposed new rules requiring private sector landlords to ensure their properties are "fit for human habitation". Then there was the Tory housing minister telling MPs  that the fire industry, "rather than the government", should "encourage the installation of fire sprinkler systems", because the added cost "may affect housebuilding".

     A change in government attitude, which is based not only on reducing cost rather than increasing safety, but also possibly on self-interest, with far too many MPs being private landlords themselves, is required before people will trust a Tory government`s housing policy again. Indeed, the fire raises similar questions about safety in government transport and energy policies, where cost-cutting and profit-maximisation also dominate.

    All governments have a moral responsibility, but May`s actions fail to reveal her understanding of this! Corbyn, on the other hand, looks more prime-ministerial by the day; the need for "socialism with a human face" has never been greater!

Gaby Hinsliff asks questions about whether "successive governments caved in too easily to profiteering landlords" (Grenfell - shameful symbol of a state that didn`t care,16/06/17), whilst your editorial finds it "very hard to understand why" the coroner`s recommendations after the Lakanal House fire "were not immediately enforced" (Grenfell Tower is shaping up to be Theresa May`s Hurricane Katrina, 16/06/17).

      Is it necessary to look further than the record of recent Tory governments? For example, in January last year a Labour amendment to the housing and planning bill was defeated, with Conservative MPs voting against "proposed new rules requiring private sector landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation" (Tories reject move to ensure rented homes fit for human habitation, 12/01/16). Then there was the Tory housing minister telling MPs  that the fire industry, "rather than the government", should "encourage the installation of fire sprinkler systems", because the added cost "may affect housebuilding" (The tragedy in west London must bring lasting change, 15/06/17). 

 A change in government attitude, which is based not only on reducing cost rather than increasing safety, but also possibly on self-interest, with far too many MPs being private landlords themselves, is required before people will trust a Tory government`s housing policy again. Indeed, the fire raises similar questions about safety in government transport and energy policies, where cost-cutting and profit-raising also dominate. Hinsliff stresses all governments` "moral responsibility", but May`s actions fail to reveal her understanding of this! Corbyn, on the other hand, looks more prime-ministerial by the day; the need for "socialism with a human face" has never been greater!

Following one of the most horrendous fire tragedies imaginable, which was probably the result of using "the cheaper, more flammable version of two options" to clad Grenfell Tower, we read that safety groups want to ban the use of combustible materials in the construction of buildings that "firefighters cannot reach from the ground" (Calls for ban on combustible cladding panels on tall buildings,17/06/17). So that would mean profit-hungry tenant management organisations could carry on using the cheap and dangerous cladding on all their properties up to ten storeys, with further risk to life? It is quite feasible in these days of over-stretched emergency services, that fire-engines would not reach an inferno blazing in a moderately tall building in time to save all the inhabitants. For the sake of a few thousand pounds!

       The regulations should be quite clear: no combustible materials should be used to clad any building, regardless of their height. As Theresa May infamously said, albeit about another subject, "Enough is enough"!